"Return the Additional Construction Costs": Landowner's Lawsuit... Court Says "Construction Firm Not Liable"

In a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment and damages filed by a landowner against a construction firm, arguing that the additional reinforced-earth construction contract concluded for a new building was unnecessary, the appellate court overturned the first-instance ruling and ruled in favor of the construction firm.

According to the legal community on the 7th, the Suwon District Court, in the appellate trial of an unjust enrichment and damages claim lawsuit filed by landowner Mr. A against construction company Company B, cancelled the first-instance ruling in May and ruled against the plaintiff.

The case dates back to 2023. Mr. A concluded a 77-million-won incidental civil engineering construction contract with Company B for a new building. Afterward, in December of the same year, he concluded an additional 55-million-won contract for the construction of a reinforced-earth retaining wall and paid the full construction cost.

However, Mr. A claimed the return of 55 million won in unjust enrichment, arguing that the reinforced-earth construction was necessary from the outset but that Company B did not inform him of this, leading him to conclude an unnecessary additional contract. He also claimed that Company B should compensate about 13 million won in restoration costs for damages, arguing that Company B arbitrarily constructed the reinforced earth outside the licensed scope, giving rise to civil complaints.

In the first instance, as Company B responded without argument, a ruling partially in favor of the plaintiff was handed down. In response, Company B rebutted in the appellate trial that the first and second contracts were independent contracts with different construction scopes and purposes. It argued that the construction scope was clearly confirmed through a survey drawing at the time of the contract, and that the construction outside the licensed scope was also done at Mr. A's request considering future development plans.

The appellate court accepted the construction firm's argument.

The court judged, "The boundary stone construction and the reinforced-earth retaining wall construction are independent work types distinguished by purpose and method," and "Since the plaintiff directly confirmed the construction scope through the survey drawing attached at the time of the second contract, he could have sufficiently anticipated that additional costs might arise separately from the first construction."

It stated, "It is difficult to see that the large-scale reinforced-earth construction cost is included in the first contract amount, and the second contract amount is also an appropriate amount within the ordinary unit price range," and "It is difficult to see that the defendant deceived the plaintiff or induced him to conclude an unnecessary contract."

Regarding the construction outside the licensed scope, the court also judged, "Since both parties agreed on the construction scope through the survey drawing, it is difficult to recognize it as unauthorized construction or an illegal act."

Park Han-jin, attorney of Daeryun LLC representing Company B, said, "As a no-argument ruling was handed down in the first instance, we effectively had to begin the defense from scratch in the appellate trial, but we submitted the survey drawing sealed by both parties at the time of the contract and related materials to prove that the reinforced-earth construction was a separate contract," and "We also demonstrated with objective materials that the construction outside the licensed scope was done at the plaintiff's request, thereby successfully defending against all of the plaintiff's claims."

Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (garden@sidae.com)

[Read the full article]
"Return the Additional Construction Costs": Landowner's Lawsuit... Court Says "Construction Firm Not Liable" (Go to link)